Laxmi Tomar vs Executive Director (North Zone), Fci, Noida U.P.and Another

Shabihul Hasnain, J.—Heard Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashutosh Kumar Singh for the opposite parties.

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 10.7.2009/13.7.2009. This order has been passed by the Executive Director (N.Z.) by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service. The reasons for dismissal have been given in the preceding paragraphs. From a perusal of the order it appears that the petitioner Smt. Laxmi Tomar got her appointment on the basis of scheduled caste certificate. Petitioner submits that although she was originally a ''Nigam'' but by marrying into Tomar family which belongs to Jaunsar Bawar area of Chakrata, Dehradun had become eligible to be given benefit of schedule tribe. A certificate was issued on the basis of which she continued for about 30 years but lateron, on an inquiry being held as late as in the year 1991, the petitioner was reverted back from the post she was working to the next lower post. Petitioner filed writ petition. In that writ petition an interim order was granted on the ground that the reversion order was not passed by the competent authority. During the pendency of the writ petition the opposite parties chose to withdraw the order of reversion. Later, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner as to why the order of punishment may not be reconsidered. Against which the petitioner filed a representation. Petitioner also filed a writ petition in this Court in which the directions were given to decide the pending representation. Opposite parties instead of deciding the representation have passed the impugned order.

Sri S.K. Mehrotra has attacked this order with his two fold argument. The first being that on the date the order was reviewed and the penalty of dismissal from service was passed by the Executive Director, the order of reversion was not in existence. Hence there can be no review of nonexistent order. The contention is that the order of dismissal passed by the Executive Director is bsed on nonapplication of mind and on nonexistent facts. The order is liable to the set aside on this ground alone.

The second argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the order has been passed independent of the review of the original reversion order then it will be bad on the count that no proper inquiry and opportunity of hearing was afforded. On question being put to Sri Ashutosh Kumar Singh, he stated that this is legal question which needs to be addressed and considered by the Court and there appears to be some technical flaw in passing the order.

Accordingly, the impugned order of dismissal dated 1.7.2009/13.7.2009 passed by the Executive Director (North Zone), Food Corporation of India, Zonal Officer (N), NOIDA, opposite party No.1, contained as Annexure No.1, is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith with all consequential benefits.

Writ petition is partly allowed.

However, the liberty is given to the opposite parties to take appropriate action afresh in accordance with law if they so choose.

(Petition allowed partly)